Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

If giving away the lofty amount of $13,000 a year counts as "tax avoidance" then yes, I guess you're correct. Try avoiding the tax on $20m or $50 or whatever, which you imply can be done. Yes, you can give it away now rather than later, which means the gains don't get taxed (as part of the estate) but you still have to pay the same rate on the amount you transfer. (I know the answer of course - that's far more money than anyone "deserves" to get anyway, never mind the fact that it's their money.)

I did agree that planning can help, but the implication is always that the super-rich just avoid the estate tax, which is simply not true. And why are people so adamant about having and raising the estate tax while at the same time claiming "no one pays it anyway"?

It's not easy to avoid estate taxes and is in fact impossible to do (legally). People manage and plan for estate taxes but it's basically done by spending money 'now' rather than waiting for the government to take it later. The *only* way to avoid estate taxes is to give away your money and it's absurd to claim that that is somehow avoiding the tax.

If you want to claim something about using a foundation, well there are all kinds of rules governing that as well. Yeah, people do things that are illegal and against the rules and sometimes get away it, but if you're going to cheat then anything is possible.

Almost everything you said is wrong or misleading. The 49% is people who earned income but owed no tax, whether they filed a return or not. Children don't file tax returns unless they have taxable income, and if they do their parent don't pay tax for them or the child would not be filing a return.

You say "untaxable income" and then list dividends, inheritance and capital gains - all of which are very much taxable. Yes, sometimes at a lower rate (even lower for low-income earners), and sometimes a much higher rate - inheritance.

Finally, the whole question of wealth (or "assets") is not well understood. Some examples: millions of shares held in a public company that has never been traded but is valued at the last trade of 10 shares. Or a privately held company that has a valuation for tax and other purposes, but has a liquidation or market value that is a fraction of that.

Yes, but it's a long, slow process. Not helped along when some of those "social groups" seem to just not get it (refer also to California's prop 8 vote).

FTA: "[...]Clarence Thomas, whose entire solo dissent was devoted to research showing that the Founding Fathers did not believe people under 18 had First Amendment rights at all. If Clarence Thomas thought really hard, could he think of any other category of people who were denied full civil rights in the 1700s, and hence why we wouldn't want to apply that standard today?)"

The real issue (to the Court) seems to been how the case was presented, not the merits of the case itself. Despite the one statement about "fly-by-night company", the judge was really just complaining about the quality of the case. Had the same case be presented by good attorneys with a well-prepared case the judge would have gone along with it.
When there's big money involved (SCO, patent trolls) you can hire expensive attorneys and take the time to prepare (spin) a case, even out of nothing. Here the attorneys were working for free and for the defense; there was no money in for them and it showed in their work.

But in a very similar situation, they did shut down Craigslist's 'adult services' section, sending it to all corners of the internet instead of keeping it nicely contained. They had a willing partner, and all the 'baddies' were right there waiting to be picked off, yet that's not the way they played it.